Theists: Hitchens Wager

[The Grand Nudger]

Wouldn't it be more accurate, then, to say that you're looking for some superhuman ability that believers have?  Obviously there's no action that a believers body is solely capable of engaging in..nor is there any string of words that only a believers mouth can form.

That's not hitchens wager, at all..though.....?  It's closely approaching a trivially meaningless question with no point..or, at least, the only possible point allowed as a credible answer would have to be superhuman abilities....which none of us possess.  Meanwhile, there are things that believers do that atheists don't, and vv, on account of differences in their respective position on gods.  This much is self evidently true...classifying every difference as a motivation means that there is no answer you'd accept, not because there is no meaningful or valid answer.....but because you've constrained the field of answers you'd accept to inanity.

I disagree. Hitchens wager is concise, not constrained to inanity. It opens the field of answers to all moral actions and statements. The fact that there is no valid response is not the fault of the questioner. Perhaps constraining the question of morality to human thought.

I didn't say his was, I'm pointing out that yours is.  He had no problem conceiving of immoral things uniquely owned by the faithful (and I doubt he was thinking of some superhuman ability), and entreated the audience to think of them..laughing as they laughed, pointing out that even though the first question stumped everyone, the second could be answered almost immediately.





He at least allowed for their to -be- an act owned by the faithful, and specifically one solely reducible to their motivation by god beliefs. If there is no such thing..or we won't allow it, then the question is rhetorical inanity.